10 VII July 2022 https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.46063
II.
Key Words: soil structure interaction, stiffness irregularity, time history analysis. I. INTRODUCTION
The indicated characteristics of
Comparative Seismic Analysis of Regular & Irregular Building with Time History Method
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com 5049©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |
In the current study, ETABS 2016 has been used to analyse a nine story structure. Finite element analysis will be done with time history data input. the created model
Piyush Mishra1 , Er. Prince Yadav2 1M.tech student, 2Asst. Professor, dept. of civil engineering, Institute of engineering and technology, Lucknow
Abstract: Over the decades, researchers have pre assumed in practice of structure design, that the structure is fixed at its base, As the structures are supported on soil but many structural designers do not consider the soil structure interaction (SSI) effects at the time of earthquake. The major goal of the current study is to ascertain how the interaction of soil and structure affects both regular and irregular structures with irregular stiffness in areas of high damage risk. In the current study, an effort is made to determine how soil structure interacts with buildings using E-TABS2016. In seismic zone IV, distinct soil conditions hard (type I), medium (type II), and soft (type III) are being compared using time history analysis.
One of the most crucial fields of structural engineering research today is soil structure interaction. In the process known as "soil structure interaction," the response of the soil is influenced by the motion of the structure and the motion of the structure is influenced by the response of the soil. By using SSI, designers can obtain the inertial force and actual soil foundation displacement caused by free field motion, which could result in a reduction in the cost of the project. Finite element analysis and computer added technology have made it easier to tackle and observe problems like these throughout time in this field. Structures fail as a result of earthquakes, and it usually starts at a weak point. Additionally, irregular constructions fall into the category of weak points due to discontinuity in mass (seismic weight greater than 150 percent of adjacent floor), stiffness irregularity, and geometry irregularity (lateral load resisting dimension greater than 200 percent of adjacent story). During an earthquake, ground get accelerated & dynamic behavior get reflected on the superstructure Vertical irregularity is the main cause of structural failure. When these structures are built in high seismic prone zones, such as zone IV or zone V, the analysis and designing portion of the construction becomes more challenging and complicated. METHODOLOGY
are mentioned below Table 1 : Structural Property 1. Plan dimension 16 X 15 m2 2. No. of stories 9 3. Floor to floor height 3000 mm 4. Beam size 250X500 5. Column size 450X450 6. Thickness of slab 150 mm 7. Zone IV 8. Zone factor 0.24 9. Importance factor 1 10. Response reduction factor 5 11. Grade of concrete M30 12. Grade of steel Fe415 13. Density of concrete 25kN/m3
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com 5050©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | Table 2: Wind Load Property Loadings Values 1. Slab load 3.75 kN/m2 2. Floor finish 1.0 kN/m2 3. Roof finish 1.0 kN/m2 4. Live Load 3.0 KN/m2 A comparison between a conventional building (model I), an irregular building without a slab on story 1 (model II), and an irregular building with a slab that is twice as thick on story 1 (model III) was done in the current study. Different soil conditions, such as soil types I, II, and III, which stand for hard, medium, and soft soil, respectively, as advised by the IS code 1893:2002 part I, were taken into consideration. Different metrics, including tale displacement and drift index for various soil types, have been estimated and compared while maintaining a fixed support condition. A. Time History Data Depth (Km) 46.0 Magnitude 7.8 Region Iran Pakistan Border Region Above details taken from IMD Station Code DCE Station Lat. 28.795N Station Long. 77.118E Station Height (m) 208.0 Site Class CVs30 between200m/secto375m/sec Record Time 16.04.201310:49:13.829 Sampling Rate 200Hz Record Duration 169.970Sec. Direction E W(Epositive) Max. Acceleration 1.521cm/sec2 Time History Graph
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com 5051©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com 5052©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | III. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS A. Story Displacement For Hard Soil The graph displays the story displacement for hard soil for Models I, II, and III. For hard soil, Models I and 3 exhibit almost the same values, whereas Model 2 shows a lower and different value clearly shows that displacement decreases with increasing stiffness B. Story Displacement For Medium Soil The graph narrate the story displacement for medium soil for Model I , Model II , Model III where as modeI 1 and 3 behavior show approximate same values instead model 2 shows lower & different value for medium soil i.e. type 2
D. Index For Hard/Rocky Soil
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com 5053©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |
The graph indicate the drift index of stiff soil for Model I , Model II , Model III as per results modeI 1 and model 3 behavior is almost same as well as model 2 shows lower & different value for hard soil model III shows the minimum value for ground floor of drift index
C. Story Displacement For Soft Soil
The graph shows change in the story displacement for loose or soft soil for Model I , Model II , Model III where as modeI 1 and model 3 show approximate same values as well as model 2 shows lower & different value for loose/ softsoil
E. Drift Index For Medium/Stiff Soil
2) The results reveal that model I and model III, which represent regular and irregular buildings with double slab depths, behave almost identically, whereas model II, which represents a building without a slab on the first floor, exhibits a different behavior and provides the best drift index results for all types of earth soil
F. Drift Index For Soft Soil
IV. CONCLUSION
4) Drift value of the buildings get increases as the stiffness of the soil decreases according to the places and conditions
The graph displays the soft soil drift index for Models I, II, and III, with Model I showing roughly the same values as Model III and Model 2 showing a lower and different value for soft soil. Model III displays the ground floor's minimum drift index value
1) The results demonstrate that the behavior of models I and III, which represent a regular building and a building with a double depth of slab, behave nearly identically, but model II, which represents a building without a slab on story 1, exhibits the best results for soil displacement across all type earth
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com 5054©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |
The graph displays the drift index for medium soil for Model I, Model II, and Model III, where Model I, Model I, and Model III exhibit almost the same values while Model I, Model II, and Model III, show lower and different values for medium soil, respectively.
3) As per results, Analysis of the all type of the buildings i.e. regular and irregular building, Story Displacement increased as the stiffness of the soil decreases
[8] Renu Raghuveeran, Hashifa Hassan P, “Seismic Soil Structure Interaction Effects on RC Bare Frames Resting on Pile Grid Foundation”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume5, Issue10, October 2015 1ISSN2250 3153.
[4] Shehata E. Abdel Raheem, Mohamed M. Ahmed and Tarek M. A. Alazrak (2015), “Evaluation of soil foundation structure interaction effects on seismic response demands of multi story MRF buildings on raft foundations”, Advance Structural Engineering., pp 11 30 [5] IS 1893(Part 1):2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures General provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
ISSN: 2321 9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VII July 2022 Available at www.ijraset.com All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |
[10] Nitish Kumar. S,Praveen J. V. “Study of Soil Structure Interaction Effect on Multi Story RCFrame Structures Resting Over Raft Foundation under Earthquake Caused Agitation”, InternationalJournal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278 0181, Vol. 5 Issue 06, June 2016.
[9] Mr. Rahul Sawantand. M.N. Bajad (2016), “Effect of Soil Structure Interaction on High Rise RC Building”. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSRJMCE), Volume 13, Issue1,pp85 91
[3] Cinitha.A, Umesha P. K and Nagesh R. Iyer (2015), “Soil structure interaction analysis for seismic response of an asymmetric RC building”, International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation., pp 1 6
REFERENCES
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
[1] Jinu Mary Mathew, Cinitha A, Umesha P K, Nagesh R Iyer and EapenSakaria (2014), “Seismic response of RC building by considering soil structure interaction” International Journal of Structural & Civil Engineering, Res. ISSN 2319 6009 Vol. 3, pp 160 172
5055©IJRASET:
[7] Kuladeepu M N, G Narayana, B K Narendra, “ssi effect on dynamic behavior of 3Dbuilding frames with raft footing”, IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN:2319 1163 |pISSN:2321 7308.
[2] Jiang Xinliang and Zhang Yanan (2013), “Influence of Structure Plane Size on Seismic Response of Soil Structure Interaction”, World Earthquake Engineering, Vol.19 No.5.pp 345 350
[6] Shreya Thusoo, Karan Modi, Rajesh Kumar, Hitesh Madahar, “Response of Buildings with Soil Structure Interaction with Varying Soil Types” , International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, Volume 09, No 4,2015.
